Dear Roostino Casino Team,
Thank you for your update.
I appreciate that you are continuing to investigate this matter, and I am willing to grant a reasonable extension until Monday.
That said, I would like to reiterate that, in addition to your internal review, I still require a clear response to the concerns I have previously raised.
Given that the decision to limit the player's withdrawal was made swiftly, it is difficult to understand why the supporting evidence and explanation required to justify that decision are taking such an unusually long time to produce. This delay raises legitimate concerns regarding procedural fairness, transparency, and whether sufficient and justifiable grounds existed for the action taken against the player in the first place.
Most top operators would likely have handled this matter more efficiently, and it would most likely have been resolved/clarified already.
Your current approach is beginning to give the impression that, rather than acknowledging what the information and evidence currently available appear to indicate—namely, that the applicable bonus restrictions may not have been communicated to the player sufficiently—the focus might be shifting towards identifying alternative grounds to justify the capping of the player's winnings.
This is not an approach that we can agree with, as any action taken against a player should be based on terms that were clearly communicated and consistently applied.
I look forward to your comprehensive response on Monday so that this matter can be assessed fairly and independently.
Dear Roostino Casino Team,
Thank you for your update.
I appreciate that you are continuing to investigate this matter, and I am willing to grant a reasonable extension until Monday.
That said, I would like to reiterate that, in addition to your internal review, I still require a clear response to the concerns I have previously raised.
Given that the decision to limit the player's withdrawal was made swiftly, it is difficult to understand why the supporting evidence and explanation required to justify that decision are taking such an unusually long time to produce. This delay raises legitimate concerns regarding procedural fairness, transparency, and whether sufficient and justifiable grounds existed for the action taken against the player in the first place.
Most top operators would likely have handled this matter more efficiently, and it would most likely have been resolved/clarified already.
Your current approach is beginning to give the impression that, rather than acknowledging what the information and evidence currently available appear to indicate—namely, that the applicable bonus restrictions may not have been communicated to the player sufficiently—the focus might be shifting towards identifying alternative grounds to justify the capping of the player's winnings.
This is not an approach that we can agree with, as any action taken against a player should be based on terms that were clearly communicated and consistently applied.
I look forward to your comprehensive response on Monday so that this matter can be assessed fairly and independently.